which it proposeth Yet it signifies much for his hauing a right and sauing Faith in all those matters proposed by this Church which cannot misguide him see the Consideration on the nineteenth Principle which right and sauing Faith children and other illiterate country people in the Catholick Church haue without any such infallible assurance concerning the Proponent as is abundantly declared by Catholick writers In like manner the Protestants also affirme That the Holy scriptures may signify much to the begetting a true and sauing Faith euen in those who cannot from Vniuersall Tradition certainly proue them to be the word of God XXII PRINCIPLE 22. If no particular person be infallible in the assent he giues to matters proposed by others to him then no man can be infallibly sure that the Church is infallible and so the Churches Infallibility can signify nothing to our infallible assurance without an equall infallibility in our selues in the belief of it If no particular person be infallible in the Assent he giues to matters propos'd c. Here Matters is left indefinite If the Doctor means to any matters at all proposed the Proposition and Consequence thereto annexed are true and granted But on the contrary a particular person may be infallible in the assent he giues to some matter proposed viz. to this That the Church is infallible If he means to all matters proposed then it is faulty and denyed For though no particular person be infallible in the assent he giues to all matters proposed by others to him yet may he be so in this the Churches Infallibility And so the Consequence also is voyd and the Churches Infallibility will signify as much as is expected to mens infallible assurance in those matters it proposeth Here then Catholicks affirm That though euery person is not so any person may be and that antecedently to the testimony of scripture at least with a morally-infallible certainty or what euer Certainty that may be called which Vniuersall Tradition can afford assured of this Diuine Reuelation the Churches Infallibility from such Tradition and other Motiues of Credibility as Protestants allow for a sufficiently or morally-morally-infallible and certain means of belieuing the scriptures to be the word of God On which word of God or Diuine Reuelation the seuerall Articles deliuered by it in the sense their own priuate judgment apprehends the Protestant grounds his Faith Again on which word of God or Diuine Reuelation in the sense this Infallible Church interprets the same Articles the Catholick grounds his Faith But as the Protestants except here from being primarily grounded on or proued by the same scriptures this Fundamentall Point of Faith That the scriptures are the true Word of God so they must giue Catholiks also leaue to except here this their Point of Faith the infallibility of the Church from being primarily or as to the first means of Knowing it grounded on or learnt from the testimony of this Infallible Church For this Point may first come to the Belieuers Knowledge either from Tradition or from the Holy scriptures as is explained before in the Considerations on 17. Principle § 28. From the scriptures I say as the sense of them is now learnt not from this Infallible Church but either from their owne sufficient Clearness in this Point or from Tradition Nor are Catholicks necessited in arguing against Protestants who grant the scriptures to be Gods Word to vse any other Testimony then that of these scriptures for a sufficiently clear Proof of Church-Infallibility For I think I may call that a clear Proof euen according to the Doctors common reason of Mankind which by the most of the Christian World is taken to be so notwithstanding that a Party engaged by their Reformation in an apparent contrary interest do contradict it Yet whilst they deny a sufficient Euidence of Church-Infallibility to be found in scripture if they would allow a sufficient Euidence of Church-Authority established to decide Ecclesiasticall Controuersies with Obligation to Externall Obedience by this Authority they would be cast and silenced for the former if a much Major Part may be admitted as it ought to giue Law to the Whole In the Belief and Profession of Which Church-Infallibility and submission of priuate mens judgments to her sentence passed in her synods the Greek Church seems no way varying from the Roman Jeremias the Constantinopolitan Patriarch in his Contest with the Lutheran Protestants is much in this as a sure Retreat for ending Controuersies and establishing Peace For he tells them That those Points which haue been determined or commanded synodically after a Legitimate way of Councills they are receiued by all Faithfull Christians as consonant to the Diuinely-Inspired scriptures And in the Conclusion of that Answer he saith It is not lawfull for vs confiding in our own priuate Explication to vnderstand to obserue or interpret any saying of Diuine scripture any otherwayes then as hath seemed good to those Theologues who haue been approued and receiued by Holy synods directed by Gods spirit least that declining from the right Euangelicall Doctrin the Conceptions of our minds should be carried about hither and thither like a Proteus But some wilt aske How shall those things be reformed How Euen thus by Gods Assistance if we take not into our hands nor giue credit to any things besides those which haue been instituted and ordained by the Holy Apostles and Holy synods He who obserues this limit is our Companion in celebrating Diuine Mysteries he is of the same Communion and Faith with us Again in his Preface to the same answer he saith We will giue our Answer not alledging any thing of our own but from the seauen Oecumenicall synods the last of these is that so much persecuted and befoold by Doctor Stillingfleet in his last Book And from the sentence of Holy Doctors interpreters of Diuinely inspired scriptures whom the Catholick Church hath by an Vnanimous consent receiued since the Holy Ghost hath breathed forth by them and spoken in them such things as shall foreuer remain unmooued as being founded on the Word of God For the Church of Christ is the Pillar and ground of Truth against which the Gates of Hell shall neuer preuail as God has promised Here we see in the East the same Zeale for Councills and for Fathers taken collectiuely as an Infallible Guide as is in the West and the like endeauour to reduce Protestants to the same acknowledgment and humble submission of Judgment XXIII PRINCIPLE 23. The Infallibility of euery particular person being not asserted by those who plead for the Infallibility of a Church and the one rendring the other vseless for if euery person be infallible what needs any Representatiue Church be so too and the infallibility of a Church being of no effect if euery Person be not infallible in the belief of it we are further to enquire what certainty men may haue in matters of Faith supposing no
of Moses Let the like absolute Obedience be now yielded to the supreme Ecclesiasticall Courts Let their sentence be so conformed to so assented to among Christians for none is obliged to do a thing as the Jewes were by those Judges but is by the same decree obliged to assent and beleeue the doing it lawfull and more is not required XVI PRINCIPLE 16. There can be no more intollerable Vsurpation vpon the Faith of Christians then for any Person or society of men to pretend to an Assistance as infallible in what they propose as was in Christ or his Apostles without giuing an equall degree of euidence that they are so assisted as Christ and his Apostles did viz. by Miracles as great publick and conuincing as theirs were by which I mean such as are wrought by those very persons who challenge this Infallibility and with a design for the conuiction of those who do not belieue it Notwithstanding the Doctors Assertion in this Proposition That a society pretending to Infallibility is obliged to confirm such a pretention by Miracles as great as Christ and his Apostles did yet himself and the Archbishop whom he defends do hold that there is after the Apostles times a body or society Infallible in Fundamentalls viz. such Oecumenicall Councills as are vniuersally accepted by the Catholick Church which Church they say from our Lord's Promise can neuer err in Fundamentalls Now it is certain this society is not equally assisted with miracles as our Lord or his Apostles were Therefore the Doctor may do well to reuiew this Principle 1. But its failings being of no difficult discouery I shall not let it pass vnexamined First then I see no reason that those equally assisted by God in deliuering a Truth must also be enabled by him to giue an equall euidence of such Assistāce where there is not the same necessity of it as there is not when the later deliuer no new thing from the former 2. Again Though none can pretend to be Infallible or actually not erring in what he proposeth but that he must be as infallible as to the truth of that wherein he erreth not as our Lord or his Apostles for one or one persons truth is no more true then any others yet in many other respects the Churches Infallibility is much inferiour to that of the Apostles in that it is 1. Neither for its matter so farr extended the Apostles being affirmed infallible in all they deliuered as well in their Arguments as Conclusions both in their relating things heard from our Lord and things anew inspired by the Holy Ghost whereas the Church-Gouernours are acknowledged infallible only in their Definitions in matters of necessary Faith and not in their receiuing any new matters inspired by God but in faithfully deliuering the Inspirations of the former 2. Neither for the manner are the Church-Gouernours so highly assisted by reason of the other knowledge and euidence they haue of that Doctrine first deliuered by the Apostles and so from them receiued which vnchanged they conuey vnto Posterity Of which degrees of infallibility see Archbishop Lawd pag. 254. and 140. 3. And in the third place hence it follows that Miracles hauing been wrought by the first in confirmation of that Doctrine which both deliuer are not now alike necessary to or reasonably demanded of the second 4. Yet since our Lord and his Apostles time Miracles haue been and are continued in the Church of which see irrefragable testimonies giuen by S. Augustin In that Church I say that pretends Infallibility and only in that Church not any other departed from it pretending thereto And vniuersally to deny the truth of them is to ouerthrow the faith of the most credible Histories But these are done in these later as in former times only when and for what ends God and not man his Instrument pleaseth and many times without such persons precedent knowledge in making his Requests what the Diuine Majesty will effect Neither are the Apostles themselues to be imagined to haue had the Operation of Miracles so in their power as as to do these in any kind when and upon what Persons they pleased or others demanded For such a thing would be of such a force vpon mens wills to compell them into Christianity or to reduce unto the Catholick Church Christians strayed from it as the Diuine Prouidence perhaps for the greater tryall of mens hearts and merit of their Faith hath not ordinarily vsed 5. Lastly Miracles remaining still in this Church though they be not professedly done for conuincing a Dissenter in this or that particular Truth yet do sufficiently testifie in generall a security of saluation in the Communion and Faith of this Church if God only honours with them the Members of this Communion and no others that liue out of it as we see no other Christian society diuided from it that layes claim to them or shews any Records of them or euer did at least such as may be any way equalled either for frequency variety or eminency with those of this Church I mean although so many of these be rejected and layd aside where appears any rationall ground of suspicion That the Doctor and the Archbishop do hold such Generall Councills as haue an vniuersall Acceptation from the Church Catholik diffusiue to be Infallible seems to me clear from the places forecited in them For in those both the Doctor and Archbishop admitt That the Church diffufiue is for euer preserued Infallible in all Fundamentalls or Points absolutely necessary to saluation and this by vertue of the Diuine Promise that the Gates of Hell shall not preuail against her and other Texts And therefore such Councills whose Decrees are admitted by the whole Church diffusiue must be so too I say as to Fundamentalls though as to other Points not fundamentall they affirme these Councills also lyable to errour and fallible because the Church Catholick diffusiue say they is so also Among the Conditions also that render any Generall Councill obligatory they require this for one that they be vniuersally accepted or haue the generall consent of the Christian World such Councills then there may be And then such Lawfull Generall Councils and so approued and consequently obliging the Christian World they confess the first four Generall Councils to haue been To which Councills therefore they profess all Obedience Now wee see what kind of Obedience it was these Councils exacted in the Athanasian Creed accepted by the Church of England which contains the summ of their Decrees viz. no less then assent and belief and submission of judgement and all this vpon penalty of eternall damnation And this if justly required by them inferrs vpon the Doctors arguing their Infallibility For saith he where Councills challenge an internall Assent by vertue of their Decrees or because their Decrees are in themselues infallible there must be first proued an Impossibility of error in them
of it not rightly used that they do not discerne in these scriptures this Infallible Guide which saith S. Augustin the scripture without any ambiguity doth demonstrate and which repaired to may demonstrate to them what else is necessary The second Proposition is That there can be no such hazard to any person in belieuing a society of men to be infallible that are not if this society be at least more learned and studied in Diuine matters then himselfe and also ordained by our Lord to be his Instructors in them which Protestants I hope allow true of their own Clergy No such hazard I say as is comparable to that euery one incurrs in mistaking the meaning of scriptures though we suppose he vseth his best other means of vnderstanding them exclusiue to his obeying the Instructions of such a society Witness the vnhappy Socinians and all other grosser sects of late sprung out of Disobedience For whereas in following these Guides such persons may fall into some errours and perhaps some of them great ones in this later way of following their owne fancyes the vnlearned may fall into a thousand and some of these much greater and grosser then any such Christian society or Body of Clergy will euer maintain For God hath made no Promise to preserue in Truth those who desert their Guides nor to reward their diligence who liue in disobedience XIX PRINCIPLE 19. The assistance which God hath promised to those who sincerely desire to know his will may giue them greater assurance of the truth of what is contained in the Bookes of scripture then it is possible for the greatest Infallibility in any other persons to do supposing they haue not such assurance of their Infallibility 1. First obserue that whateuer Diuine assistance is aduanced here against the assurance that can be receiued from Church-Infallibility the same is more against any assurāce that may be had from Church-Authority Thus it happens more then once in these Principles that in too forward a Zeale in demolishing the one the other also is dangerously vndermined 2. The Doctor hath all reason here to suppose him that repairs to and is instructed by an Infallible Guide though not knowing him to be such as well as him who seeks for an assurance of his Faith without one sincerely to desire to know Gods will and vpon this to enjoy his promised Assistance so far as God engageth it And then if the Question be which of these two takes the more prudent course he that consults or he that lays aside this Guide for his assurance of the truth of what is contained in the Bookes of scripture I should think the former Whilst the one relyes on the judgment of such Guide thought wise and learned though not infallible the other on his own On the judgment of which Guide the one hath much more reason to be confident then the other on his own who neglects the advice of the Wise man Ne innitaris prudentiae tuae Lean not on thy own Prudence At least the Doctor must grant the former of the two to be de facto in a much safer condition For it must be acknowledged a great benefit to haue an Infallible Guide to shew us our way though we doe not know him to be Infallible for so we keep still in the right way though belieuing only and not infallible certain that it is so so we walke in Humility and obedience And if God hath directed us for learning our right way to a Guide surely he will take no prudent course who committing himselfe to Gods immediate Assistance shall neglect it and break his commandement in hope of his fauour XX. PRINCIPLE 20. No mans Faith can therefore be infallible meerly because the Proponent is said to be infallible because the nature of Assent doth not depend vpon the objectiue Infallibility of any thing without us but is agreable to the euidence we haue of it in our minds for Assent is not built on the nature of things but their evidence to us This Proposition is granted viz. That no person is infallibly certain of or in his Faith because the Proponent thereof is infallible vnless he also certainly know or haue an infallible evidence that he is infallible Only let it be here remembred That for begetting an infallible assent to the thing proposed it is sufficient if we haue an infalliblé euidence either of the thing proposed or of the Proponent only Because if we are infallibly certain that he cannot ly in such matter who relates it to us we are also hence infallibly certain that what he says is truth XXI PRINCIPLE 21. It is necessary therefore in order to an infallible assent that euery particular person be infallibly assisted in judging of the matters proposed to him to be belieued so that the ground on which a necessity of some Externall Infallible Proponent is asserted must rather make euery particular person infallible if no Diuine Faith can be without an infallible assent and so renders any other Infallibility vseless This Proposition That therefore it is necessary in order to an infallible assent that euery particular person be infallibly assisted in judging of the matters proposed to him to be belieued is not well deduced from the precedent Proposition rightly vnderstood Neither is it true and so the Consequence also faileth viz. so that the Ground on which a necessity of some externall Infallible Proponent is asserted must rather make euery particular person infallible if no Diuine Faith can be without an infallible assent and so renders any other Infallibility useless Because as was now said for the yeilding an Infallible assent to the things proposed it is not necessary that the person haue an infallible euidence of the truth of the things proposed that is from the Internall Principles that proue or demonstrate them But it is enough though the things proposed remain still in themselues obscure to him that he haue an infallible or sufficiently certain Euidence only of the Infallibility of the Externall Proponent The Ground therefore vpon which the necessity of some externall infallible Proponent is asserted for begeting such infallible assent is because the Person hath by no other way any infallible euidence of the things proposed Which if he had then indeed the Proponents Infallibility for such Points is rendred vseless And by this I hope sufficiently appeareth that misarguing that seems to cause a great confusion in the Doctor 's Principles whilst vpon an infallible assent requiring an infallible Euidence layd down in the Twentieth Proposition and Conceded he concludes as necessary to our yielding an infallible assent to all that the Church proposeth an infallible Euidence of the things proposed and then hence inferres the vselessness of such infallible Proponent And here note that though the Churches Infallibility to such a person as is not infallibly assured of it signifies nothing as to his infallible assurance of that
against it ought to submit to the judgment of this Authority for the Knowing what things are reuealed in this Word and what are contrary to or not founded in it and to vse the Doctors Expression to be guided by the sense of Scripture as it is interpreted by this Authority Else a mistaken and culpably ignorant belief herein will no way justify his disobedience No more then the Socinians contrary belief justifies him against the Decrees of the Church in those Points which yet he belieues not to be founded in Gods word and rejects as contrary And the Doctor els-where to express and curb such extrauagant and capricious beliefs is glad to call in for the interpreting of Scripture to them the concurrant sense of the Primitiue Church the common Reason of Mankind that supposeth Scripture the Rule of Faith the consent of Wise and learned men And on their side who disbelieue this Authority he calls for no less then Demonstration and this not some improbable Argument miscalled so but which being proposed to any man and vnderstood the mind cannot choose but inwardly assent thereto that is that euery reasonable man vnderstanding the terms assents to But how this and seuerall other things which haue fallen some times from the Doctors pen do consist with these Principles and some other Tenēts of his Or how the true sense of Scripture in all Necessaries is so clear and intelligible to euery sincere endeauourer as that he hath such Demonstration for it as that no rationall man hearing it can dissent from it I cannot vndertake to giue a Satisfactory account Mean while such Protestants as perhaps may cast their eyes on these Papers may do well to consider whether vpon such a Demonstratiue Certainty in the Points controuerted as this it is that they oppose Church-Authority teaching them otherwise Likwise the Common Reason of MankindChristian the Common consent of Wise and learned men named by him before what are they indeed but where all are not vnited in the same judgment the most common Suffrage and testimony of the present Vniversall Church whom also we ought sooner to credit then any other touching what is the concurrent testimony of the Primitiue Church in case this suffers any debate And if as he says Particular persons are not to depart from this judgment of Authority till they haue Demonstration that is their own certainty and Infallibility as to such Point to shew against it then we need not seek for our Lords Patent of the Churches Infallibility for their or our submission to it tell the Opposers of its judgment for the Points they dissent in produce theirs Here then we see the Doctor getts as near to an Internall Infallible or at least Authenticall Proponent as his cause and interest will permitt him Hoping by his requiring Demonstration and introducing Common Reason and Wise and learned men and Primitiue Church to shake his hands of so many Sectarists who molest his owne Churches peace vpon the account of this his Proposition or something like it viz. that no Christian is bound vnder what euer pretence of Church Authority to belieue that which is not reuealed in Gods Word and is bound to reject what euer is offred to be impos'd vpon his Faith that is contrary or hath no ground in Gods Word c. And you must lett them judg of both these For the last part of this 29. Principle That such Rejection is no making Negative Articles of Faith I grant that a rejecting of the imposition of a Belief of such a Positiue Point or the refusing to admitt it as an Article of their Faith which may be done whilst they eyther suspend their judgment concerning it or also acknowledg the truth of it supposed no Diuine Reuelation if this were all the Protestants do is not therefore making the Negatiue of it an Article of their Faith But mean while the rejecting any such Positiue from their Faith as not only vntrue but contrary to the Scripture is making or declaring the Negatiue of it an Article of their Faith because it makes this Negatiue a thing reuealed in Scripture and so a matter of Faith though I do not say an Article necessary to Saluation And therefore perhaps it was that the Doctor in the Reason he annexeth That they only apply the Generall grounds of Faith to particular instances c. mentions indeed such Positiues as are neyther in nor may be deduced from the Scripture but warily omitts such as are pretended contrary to Scripture Now that Protestants declare many of these Positiues they reject contrary to Scripture See for Purgatory Adoration of Images Inuocation of Saints Indulgences in the Article of the Church of England 22. For Works of Supererogation Art 14. For Publick Prayer or Ministery of the Sacraments in a Tongue not vnderstood by the people Art 24. Sacrifice of the Mass. Art 31. Transubstantiation Art 28. And to this Belief of the Negatiues of them as contained in Scripture all the Members of the Church of England or at least the Clergy seem to be by their Canons as strictly obliged though some of their Diuines appear not well satisfied with it vnder these terms To allow and acknowledg all the Articles and so these fore-cited agreable to Gods Word To declare their vnfeigned assent to them and this for establishing Vnity of Opinion and consent as those of the Roman Church are obliged to the Positiues who are no such way obliged by that Church to such a necessary Belief of all her Positiues as that a Person nescient of them cannot be saued or that the explicit knowledg of them is necessary though always in some measure beneficiall it is to Saluation But this indeed is necessary to Saluation that any Subject of the Church knowing them to be determined by her obey her Definitions and not reject or dissent from them Such Disobedience being conceaued a breach of Gods Command And from this if I may be indulged to trangress a little an Answer may be giuen to that Quaere of the Doctors in his Book Roman Idolatry p. 52. which he says he could not hitherto procure from Catholiks though he hath often requested it viz. Why the belieuing of all the Ancient Creeds and leading a good life may not be sufficient to Saluation vnless one be of the Communion of the Church of Rome Where if he will allow me here for auoyding by disputes to change these Words Communion of the Church of Rome into the Communion of the Roman Catholick Church and 2. will giue me leaue to vnderstand a good life here restrained to all other duties of a Christian saue those which respect this Communion else if a good life be generally taken the Doctors supposition must not be allowed Then I answer That such Belieuing and Leading such a life cannot be sufficient for Saluation to so many persons as persist without repentance eyther in a wilfull ignorance of their Obligation to
sense we assert the Certainty of Christian Faith to be MORALL not in the later This Principle is granted if importing only that Christians haue or may haue a sufficiently certain and infallible Euidence of the Truth of their Christianity But notwithstanding this Christians may be deficient in a right belief of seuerall necessary Articles of this Christian Faith if destitute of that externall Infallible Guide therein And the perpetuall Diuine Assistance and so Infallibility in Necessaries of this Guide being declared in the scriptures a Catholick hauing once learnt this Point of Faith from it Definitions and Expositions becomes secure and setled in the belief of all those controuerted Articles of his Faith Wherein Others another whilst the scriptures in such Points at least to persons vnlearned or of weaker judgments which are which are the greatest part of Christians are ambiguous in their sence and drawn with much art to seuerall interests XXVIII PRINCIPLE 28. A Christian being thus certain to the highest degree of a firm assent that the scriptures are the Word of God his Faith is thereby resolued into the scriptures as into the rule and measure of what hee is to belieue as it is into the Veracity of God as the ground of belieuing what is therein contained Both Catholicks and Protestants profess to resolue their Faith into the Word of God and Diuine Reuelation or into the scriptures so as is said on Principle 14. and 29. and make Gods Veracity the Ground of their belief of the things therein contained But the former resolue their Faith into this scripture as the sense of it where disputed is deliuered by the Church whose Faith the Apostle commands vs to follow and to whom Christ himself giues testimony as S. Augustin saith As for Protestants they resolue their Faith into this scripture as the sence of it is ultimatly apprehended and vnderstood by their own judgments None here to vse the Doctors words elsewhere vsurping that Royall Prerogrtiue of Heauen in prescribing infallibly in matters question'd suppose in those Points the Doctor named before the Doctrine of the Deity of Iesus Christ or of the Trinity But leauing all to judge and so the Socinians according to the Pandects of the Diuine Lawes because each member of this society is bound to take care of his soul and all things that tend thereto But here the Doctor will permit vs to aske whether euery one is bound to take care of his soul so as vnder the pretence hereof to disobey their Resolutions and Instructions in Faith or Manners whom God hath appointed to take care of and to watch ouer their soules and will require an account of them for it Here therefore let euery one take the safest course and where there is no euident Certainty always make sure to side with the Church XXIX PRINCIPLE 29 No Christian can be obliged vnder any pretence of Infallibility to belieue any thing as a matter of Faith but what was reuealed by God himselfe in that Book wherein he belieues his will to be contained and consequently is bound to reject whatsoeuer is offered to be imposed vpon his Faith which hath no fundation in scripture or is contrary thereto Which rejection is no making NEGATIVE ARTICLES OF FAITH but only applying the generall grounds of Faith to particular instances as I belieue nothing necessary to saluation but what is contained in scripeure Therefore no such particular things which neither are there nor can be deduced thence 1. Here first obserue That what no Christian is obliged to belieue vnder any pretence of Church-Infallibility he is much rather not obliged to belieue vnder any pretence of Church Authority And that the Doctors freeing the Churches subjects here from the former doth so from the later It concerns therefore his superiors to look to it whether their Churches and their owne Authority suffers no detriment particularly from this Principle I mean so as it can be applied to priuate mens practice 2. Next obserue That the Expression What is reuealed by God c. as it is applicable to persons must either mean What such person only thinks belieues or is perswaded to be reuealed c. or what such person certainly knows to be reuealed And the same may be sayd of the later expressions what hath no foundation What is contrary Now as either of these two Additions are made a great alteration is made in the Principle and what in the one Addition is true in the other may be false As for example when a culpable Ignorance belieues something that is enjoyned by this Authority not to be reuealed in Gods Word which indeed is so and so rejects it here such act is not justifiable Very necessary therefore it seems here to make an exact distinction that if the Doctor means it here of the one viz. certain Knowledge it may not be misapplyed by any to the other namely a belief or full perswasion For so men set once vpon examining well in such high mysteries their owne Certainty will I conceiue neuer find just cause to reject what this Church-Authority to which they owe obedience recommends to them vpon Her Certainty But to take Expressions as they lye For the first Part of this Principle thus much is granted That no Christian can be obliged vnder any pretence of Infallibility to belieue any thing as a matter of Faith but what is reuealed by God himselfe in his Word Written or Vnwritten both which the Doctor else where allowes to be of the same Value so it be euident they are his Word Where I adde vnwritten because though it is granted before on Principle 14. that the Word written or Book of scriptures contains all those Points of Faith that are simply necessary to be of all persons belieued for attaining saluation Yet some Articles of a Christians Faith there may be that are not there contained which may be also securely preserued in the Church by Ecclesiasticall Tradition both Written and Vnwritten deriued at first from the Apostolicall as for example this by Protestants confessed That these Bookes of scripture are the Word of God I say thus much is granted For no Church-Infallibility is now pretended but only in declaring what this Word of God deliuers requireth authorizeth and a Catholicks whole Faith is grounded on Diuine Reuelation And where such pretended Infallible Church-Authority enjoyns any thing to be belieued meerly as lawfull it grounds it selfe on this Word of God for the lawfulness of it The Consequence also is granted viz. That a Christian is bound to reject whatsoeuer is offred to be imposed vpon his Faith which hath no foundation in scripture or Gods Word as before explained or is contrary thereto that is which is certainly known to such Christian to be so there being no matter of Faith enjoyned by such Authority but what is pretended to be so founded But then such Christian where not infallibly certain